Party on

After one hour observing Earth Hour, what do you do?
Party away, of course.

"The campaign ended with a rock concert at the boulevard participated in by local bands."

So much for carbon emissions. heh!


Update: More parties!

Who painted this?

H/T The Anchoress
Who painted this?

Animals better than Europeans?

The European Commission is proposing a new directive that will allow toxicology tests on animals only when the same tests "proved fruitless" on human embryos. So animals are now more important than humans?

The Catholic Herald has the whole story.

Before scientists can test any new medicines on animals they will first have to determine that no other method is "reasonably or practicably available". Such methods, according to the EC, include testing human embryonic stem cells - a procedure controversial in most European countries because the embryos are destroyed during the process of extraction of such tissue. If the EC directive is approved by MEPs next month it will be binding on all 27 EU member states, including Britain.

Article 13 of the directive reads: "Member states shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is recognised by Community legislation. In the absence of such a method, a procedure may not be carried out if a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, including computer-supported, in vitro and other methodologies, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available."

H/T: Dawn Eden

As green turns to greed(ier)

And so it is. New world order. New world economy. One world. Ambitious plan, but dangerous.

Among the tools that are considered are the cap-and-trade system for controlling carbon emissions that has been espoused by the Obama administration; "carbon taxes" on imported fuels and energy-intensive goods and industries, including airline transportation; and lower subsidies for those same goods, as well as new or higher subsidies for goods that are considered "environmentally sound."

Other tools are referred to only vaguely, including "energy policy reform," which the report indicates could affect "large-scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports." When it comes to the results of such reform, the note says only that it could have "positive consequences for alternative transportation providers and producers of alternative fuels."

In the same bland manner, the note informs negotiators without going into details that cap-and-trade schemes "may induce some industrial relocation" to "less regulated host countries." Cap-and-trade functions by creating decreasing numbers of pollution-emission permits to be traded by industrial users, and thus pay more for each unit of carbon-based pollution, a market-driven system that aims to drive manufacturers toward less polluting technologies.

The note adds only that industrial relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment." But at the same time it "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries."

There are also entirely new kinds of tariffs and trade protectionist barriers such as those termed in the note as "border carbon adjustment"— which, the note says, can impose "a levy on imported goods equal to that which would have been imposed had they been produced domestically" under more strict environmental regimes.

Another form of "adjustment" would require exporters to "buy [carbon] offsets at the border equal to that which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the good been produced domestically."

The impact of both schemes, the note says, "would be functionally equivalent to an increased tariff: decreased market share for covered foreign producers." (There is no definition in the report of who, exactly, is "foreign.") The note adds that "If they were implemented fairly, such schemes would leave trade and investment patterns unchanged." Nothing is said about the consequences if such fairness was not achieved.

Welcome to the Old World!

On another note, the (s)witching hour will only benefit the world $21,000.00 (or in terms of emissions, like "switching off China's emissions for six short seconds.") Bjorn Lomborg continues in his op-ed in The Australian:

In Australia last year, Earth Hour's organisers required participating businesses to pledge to reduce their emissions by 5 per cent during the following year. This year, that requirement has been dropped. "We decided we'd actually downplay (concrete cuts)this time," the chief executive of WWF Australia told The Sunday Age. There apparently has been no accounting of whether last year's sponsors lived up to their pledge. The Sunday Age reported last week: "An analysis of the key sponsors of Earth Hour reveals that most have reported increased emissions in their most recent figures."

And it gets worse: the event could cause higher overall pollution than if we just left our lights on. When asked to extinguish electricity, people turn to candlelight. Candles seem natural, but are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light globes, and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights. If you use one candle for each extinguished globe, you're essentially not cutting CO2 at all, and with two candles you'll emit more CO2. Moreover, candles produce indoor air pollution 10 to 100 times the level of pollution caused by all cars, industry and electricity production.

No wonder that even committed climate campaigners are sceptical. Clive Hamilton, author of Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change, told The Sunday Age last week that "we are well past the time for feel-good exercises aimed at raising awareness. It's like the band playing on as the Titanic sinks."

He said there was a real danger that Earth Hour convinced people we were making progress on climate change when we were not. And it let business and government off the hook.

Personal agenda

Yet to be confirmed US HHS Sec. Sebelius signs a Kansas law that allows women and girls seeking abortions to see ultrasound images of their babies before the procedure. Although she has not been against this procedure, the pro-abort (yet Catholic) Sebelius signed this bill into law, surprising many in the pro-life movements. Personal agenda?

TOPEKA, Kan. — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signs a bill ensuring that women and girls seeking abortions can see ultrasound images before the procedure.

The legislation, signed Friday and taking effect July 1, also ensures that abortion patients can listen to the fetal heartbeat.

Sebelius signed the measure as she awaits U.S. Senate confirmation as federal Health and Human Services secretary. Anti-abortion groups in Washington have criticized her nomination because of her abortion rights stance.

The Kansas governor offered no explanation of why she signed the bill, though she's never targeted such provisions when she's vetoed past abortion measures.

The bill amends a state law requiring doctors to obtain a patient's informed consent before performing an abortion.

The witching hour

Thought I do this after the fact. But I need to squeeze in something before the big hour (for some).

Symbolism is powerful if it leads to action, but dangerous if it substitutes for it.

Human Achievement Hour

Instead of Earth Hour! The Real Hour of Power!

Washington, D.C., March 19, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading free-market think tank, plans to recognize “Human Achievement Hour” between 8:30pm and 9:30pm on March 28, 2009. The new one-hour holiday coincides with Earth Hour, a period of time during which governments, individuals, and corporations have agreed to dim or shut off lights in an effort to draw attention to climate change.

“We are so proud that millions of people plan to show their appreciation for human achievement by doing things like eating dinner, watching television, going to the movies, and brushing their teeth,” says Human Achievement Hour Founder and CEI Policy Analyst Michelle Minton [1]. “Never before has a new holiday caught on so quickly.”

The new one-hour holiday, unknown prior to this press release, has already received overwhelming support from many of Washington, D.C.’s leading institutions. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, for example, tells CEI that it does not plan to shut down all of the city’s bus and rail lines for the “Earth Hour.” The Kennedy Center, likewise, has scheduled a performance of the long-running play Sheer Madness, a jazz concert, and a dance performance to coincide with the Human Achievement Hour. Washington, D.C.’s Target store, furthermore, will remain open until 10:00pm on the evening of the 28th. The Smithsonian Institution also plans a film showing that will extend into Human Achievement Hour.

“We salute the people who keep the lights on and produce the energy that helps make human achievement possible,” says Myron Ebell [2], CEI’s Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy.

You can have your own human achievement hour, by being you.

OCO is LOCO

Global war on terror is saying what it really is. They always like to play with words in the wrong way. Overseas contingency operations.

Heh!

Protect or Provide

Christopher O. Tollefsen comments at Public Discourse on The One's repealing "the restrictions set by President Bush on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research" and signalling "his intention to repeal a rule promulgated in the last days of the Bush administration that codified previous law ensuring that no health care providers at institutions receiving federal funds should be discriminated against for refusing to participate in abortion or sterilization procedures," by playing on the "tension between the role of the state as a protector of persons and the role of the state as a provider of benefits."

The state should exist primarily in the capacity of a protector of persons—of their lives, clearly, and also of their liberty to shape their lives as selves through time. The decisions regarding embryo-destructive research and the repeal or revision of health care provider conscience clauses seriously jeopardize the present administration’s claims to be fulfilling this fundamental task. And failure in this domain, much more than failure in the provision of some limited set of benefits, constitutes a terrible injustice against the persons for whose sake the state exists in the first place.

Why really?

Sen. Rodolfo Biazon says what he does best: a soldier's general. Among many things that he has said about the issues surrounding the kidnapping of ICRC personnel by the Abu Sayyaf, this one I like most:

But Biazon said he also could not understand why the soldiers and commanders were being blamed and the “terrorist being considered as men of word of honor.”

This man gets it. Really gets it.

He too gets it. Really gets it.

DUIP*

Philippine Star reports on a consolidated bill prohibiting mobile phone use (call or SMS, hands-free or otherwise) while driving. It could have come sooner, but this bill, if passed as a law, will never be too late. As early as 2003, a study showed that driving while using the mobile phone is as deadly as drunk-driving. Driver distraction in both cases is about the same. One University of Utah study even suggests that at times, depending on other factors, driving while under the influence of phone* might even be more dangerous than drunk-driving.

While I definitely ever don't drive while using the phone, I have had many experiences when I was being driven and I answered a call on my mobile, I found myself "lost" after hanging up -- I had to ask the driver where we were. I am certain that I would have been more lost if I drove and used the phone at the same time.

I remember my professor in graduate finance class saying that it is not a question of whether we are good drivers (if we truly are) that we can avoid vehicular accidents. What matters is if there is an a**h*** driver (who may be drunk, using his cellphone, etc.) who cannot avoid hitting you.

Our worst fear

The "emergency" climate change meeting last week in Copenhagen was a done deal even before it happened. You can't make this up.

Mike Hulme of the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia who was in that meeting of about 2,000+ researchers says that the final conference statement, which somehow brought forth the "'final warning' to negotiators about the necessity for a powerful political deal on climate" was nothing more than ready-made.

Our worst fear is not global warming. It is when "scientists" start acting out a script from a bad movie.

The rest is all politics And we should let politics decide, without being ambushed by a chimera of political prescriptiveness dressed up as (false) scientific unanimity.

And to think that MSM did not report the real climate meeting in New York at the same time.

More on EU's population time bomb

Michael Mapa writes a letter to the editor at PDI commenting on EC Ambassador Alistair MacDonald's support of a proposed reproductive health bill brewing in the Philippine Congress. Mr. Mapa points out that "European countries are facing a serious problem: their rapidly aging populations. After decades of freely available contraceptives and abortion-on-demand, some countries, such as Germany and Russia, now have to offer financial incentives to encourage people to have more children."

So yeah. Why do we have to encourage ourselves to follow in the footsteps of EU in their mistakes? Many have seen the negative effects of legislated population control programs in Europe and in other countries who followed suit. A paper entitled: Managing European Demographic Decline: Below Replacement-Rate Fertiltiy and its Impact on European Security considers many of these. Excerpts:

In this regard, it may be profitable to consider the current and projected security situation among the nations of Europe. Why Europe? Europe is the first region that has apparently completed the “demographic transition,” from high fertility to extremely below replacement-rate fertility. Although it remains uncertain how low fertility may still drop in some European countries, most have now been in a state of below replacement-rate fertility for at least two to three decades; thus, the implications of this level of fertility are being acted out now – reducing the need for conjecture. What is more, the fact that the European landmass is bordered by countries with fertility rates (and corresponding “youth bulges”) relatively higher than Europe’s, may also illustrate the security ramifications of uneven fertility decline. For these reasons, it may prove useful to investigate Europe as the model for the world’s low-fertility future – it could be considered either the harbinger of a new age of relative tranquility or the canary in the mineshaft, alerting the rest of the world to the security problems resulting from low fertility.

The basic demographic facts are startling. According to the European Parliament, by 2050, the average resident of Europe will be 49 years of age. (Draft Report on the Demographic Future of Europe, European Parliament, 2007) Joseph Chamie, former head of the United Nations Population Division, estimates that, without continued immigration or an unexpected spike in fertility, the population of Europe will drop by around 20 per cent, from a current level of 730 million to “well below 600 million by mid-century.” (Chamie, 2007) Because of the anticipated “contraction” in the working age population, the governments of Europe and the EU are actively planning for “a drop in the potential growth of European GDP of up to 1.2% between 2031 and 2050.” (Draft Report on the Demographic Future of Europe, European Parliament, 2007) The status of France and Germany – the major drivers of EU integration – is therefore particularly problematic (but not unusual among European nations); according to Haas,

France and Germany confront similar problems…Both states presently face a daunting fiscal challenge created by their aging populations. Over the next thirty years, annual spending on elderly care is expected to rise by nearly 14 percent of GDP in France and by more than 10 percent of GDP in Germany. In both states, seniors rely heavily on their government for retirement support, and both will be hard-pressed to pay for this support without significant cuts in discretionary spending, given that tax and deficit rates are already high. (Haas, 2007)

European governments are mainly concerned about such economic ramifications. But as Haas, makes clear, beyond the issue of how relative economic vitality affects national security, there is an even more direct link between demographics and security: if governments are forced to spend the lion’s share of their budgets on care for the aged, there will be less money left over for other budget items, such as the military The projected increases in government spending for the elderly in coming decades are sobering….The ratio of working-age people to seniors is steadily declining. These anticipated increases in welfare payments will add hundreds of billions of dollars, in real terms, to governments’ annual expenditures for many decades. To give some perspective on their magnitude, consider the following: roughly thirty-five years from now, the annual amount of money that the great powers will have to spend on elderly care is going to increase, in real terms, many times what these states currently spend on their militaries. By 2040 Germany will have to increase its annual spending on elderly care more than seven times what it currently spends on defense. France will have to spend more than five times as much… (Haas, 2007)

Other stories about this population problem may be found here and here.

In 1990, I spent many months at ELIS in Rome, Italy to prepare for the operations of my school in Cebu. In one conversation wth a lawyer and his pediatrician-friend, the doctor said that his practice was declining. I told him that children are healthier. While he agreed to what I said, he also answered that it was not as complicated as that. Simply, there are less children.

That conversation was echoed about 10 years later. I was in Tokyo, Japan to attend an AOTS training program with representatives from other training centers of ASEAN countries. I remember that in one mid-morning break, I was peering out of a window and looking at a complex with four-storey buildings across the street. Our Japanese coordinator who was beside me told me that the complex was a school and that they were using only one floor of one of the many buildings. I asked him why and, as expected, he said that there was just not many children in the district. One of the other participants within earshot of us, wittingly said that if only there were technology available, he would like to ask the Japanese government to transfer those buildings to his country. Why not?

Better off dead?

from LifeSiteNews.com:

MONTREAL, March 17, 2009 (LifeSIteNews.com) - A Quebec couple have launched a $3.5-million lawsuit against Montreal Children's Hospital for allegedly putting their infant daughter back on artificial food and hydration without their approval.

Marie-Eve Laurendeau gave birth to Phebe Mantha at LaSalle Hospital in November 2007. After a difficult delivery Phebe was transferred to Montreal Children's Hospital in serious condition and put on life support.

According to the lawsuit Laurendeau and Phebe's father, Stephane Mantha, were told by doctors that their daughter had little chance for survival and advised them to take her off respiratory support and hydration, to which they agreed.

After withdrawing respiratory support, however, it was found that Phebe could breathe on her own, and the hospital's ethics committee reversed the parents' decision to withhold fluids and food from their baby.

H/T:  Danielle at FB

All but natural

And I thought we are still battling the warming?  In fact, we need to do something drastic in 100 months.  But a new study shows that the "earth is undergoing natural climate shift".

The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.

The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.

Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?

But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural ...

What?! We can't Kill Embryos Yet*

*Blog post of Creative Minority Report.

Read and be enlightened.

What?! We Can't Kill Embryos Yet

Poor President Obama. He makes a big deal of signing legislation declaring it open season on embryos and then just two days later he, perhaps unwittingly, signed legislation buried in his humongous Omnibus bill that outright makes federal funding of the destruction of human embryos illegal. Oops.

Fr. Miguel Anselmo Azcona Bernad, S.J. +

Fr. Bernad, whom I met on two occasions when he spoke about Philippine National Hero Jose Rizal, passed away early this afternoon. He lived a long and fruitful life. He was 91.

PDI contributor Nono Montalvan was quoted as saying that Fr. Bernad was:

“the greatest Filipino from Mindanao” whose “brilliance and love for the island had celebrated the triumph of the human spirit.”

International Conference on Climate Change

Because the MSM did not report on this, I direct you to the website of The Heartland Institute that sponsored the three-day event in New York.  (Not to be confused with the emergency luau in Copenhagen recently.)

Ronald Bailey, a correspondent of Reason magazine was there, and he gives us a series of reports of the meet.  He writes Among the Global Skeptics on March 9, What Planetary Emergency on March 10, and the final day's Clouding Up Man-Made Global Warming.

Excerpts from the report of the last day:

At the luncheon, retired NASA climatologist John Theon rose to lament the fact that he hadn't fired James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and an ardent advocate of the idea that man-made global warming is a catastrophe in the making. The audience burst into applause when Theon called Hansen an "embarrassment." In 1988, Hansen launched global warming as a public policy issue in his testimony before a congressional committee. Theon admitted that he actually couldn't have fired Hansen, who had powerful political protectors, most notably then-Senator and later Vice President Al Gore. So had Theon tried to do it, it's much more likely that he himself would have been out on the street rather than Hansen.

Theon told the audience that while he remained silent on the issue of global warming when he retired from NASA, he now felt he needed to speak out. "This whole thing is a fraud," said Theon. "We need to educate the public about what we're going to get into unless we stop this nonsense." The nonsense being the deleterious effect that carbon rationing would have on economic growth and jobs.

Next up was Christopher Monckton, a former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Monckton delivered a high energy stem-winder mocking global warming "bedwetters" and praising the conference participants for their courage in opposing the activists' global warming juggernaut.

Scientists or politicians?

Christopher Booker writes this week:

The real disaster hanging over us lies in all those astronomically costly measures proposed by politicians, to meet a crisis which in reality never existed.

And he was not talking about the global financial crisis, although, these measures, if pushed forward with even more "urgency", could make life more miserable.

Miranda Devine chimes in:

It just shows that what counts with climate hysterics is not the greenness of the planet but the brownie points they gain.

Did you hear about the climate meet in New York this past week? No? It figures, especially if MSM only write about a Copenhagen "emergency summit on climate change" this week. Of course, if the future British king said there that we have only 100 months to do something before we see catastrophe. Then again, they always move the day of reckoning. Makes me wonder whether there really is a point of no return.

Embryos are fertilized

Of course they are.

Former Pres. Clinton does not think so. In an interview by Dr. Sanjay Gupta over at CNN, Clinton said that it was okay to experiment on embryos unless they are fertilized.

I think - the answer is I think that we'll work it through. If - particularly if it's done right. If it's obvious that we're not taking embryos that can - that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it's obvious that we're not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this....

I don't know that I have any reservations, but I was - he has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they're not going to be fertilized. I believe the American people believe it's a pro-life decision to use an embryo that's frozen and never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research....

But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don't want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those....

But there are values involved that we all ought to feel free to discuss in all scientific research. And that is the one thing that I think these committees need to make it clear that they're not going to fool with any embryos where there's any possibility, even if it's somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings.

And he said it many times. Some say he must have meant "implantation" but we do not buy that. Clinton said in an earlier interview with Larry King the same thing.

But let me say, I feel very strongly about this. I think that I worked hard on the sequencing of the human genome. We finished it when I was president. Now there are all these practical applications being spun out of it. We've identified the genes that were high predictors of breast cancer. We're getting close on Parkinson's. We're even making headway on Alzheimer's. But this stem cell research, if the stem cells are frozen embryonic stem cells, if they are never going to be used to be fertilized, to bring a life into being, then I think making them available for medical research is the pro-life position and I honestly don't understand -- I would understand it if we were going and raiding stem cell banks, where these stem cells were going to be used to actually fertilize eggs and have babies.

Even Gupta did not correct Clinton on his use of "fertilized" (On another note, remember that slip that Gupta made in Larry King Live when he said that one of the tasks of the surgeon general was to "prevent" life -- he corrected himself quickly when he said "preserve life".)

Check Jill Stanek. Read also Domenico and Kelly.

Here's a link to that interview.

What's next?

Soon enough, we'd see people and animals in domestic partnerships in California.

And if the ballot measure fails again, what next?

California may be far away from RP, but, again, there is a tendency for us to copy.

Anything goes

For the sake of the the Big Three -- health, education and energy.

Things. Now we know what they are. The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.

Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.

Only in WSJ Blogs

What you can't find in MSM (esp. NYT or CNN). Besides, Big Al isn't The One.

Its “kind of silly” to keep debating the science. (AP)

$3,500 (update: $10,000)

Who gets to play here?



How far can $3,500 go these days?

Update: Over at debbieschlussel.com, a reader says the set costs $10,000.00.

Just can't

Just cannot not link to this op-ed. H/T: Jill

Abortion ascendance
Gary Bauer and Daniel Allott

In August 2008, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt said a proposed rule would protect medical workers from performing abortions "against their consciences." The Obama administration seeks to rescind or change the ruling.

COMMENTARY:

A philosophical shift has taken place in the abortion rights movement. After confronting either a pro-life president or a pro-life majority in Congress for 26 of the last 28 years, abortion advocates have now secured sympathetic majorities in all three branches of government.

And change in government has brought change to a movement that's moved beyond working to secure a woman's right to choose abortion. Its new goal is much more audacious - to coerce others into violating their consciences and participating in the murder of innocent human life. It's a shift from merely being "pro-choice" to being "pro-abortion."

Another GWA talking point, CFL's, and cool bearer

Reuters reports that "U.S. oil and natural gas producing companies should not receive federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress on Wednesday."

Be careful Mr Geithner of what you say. There are many recipients and would-be beneficiaries of government aid that contribute to "global warming." You just might make a lot more enemies. This is the same Mr Geithner who says he will run after tax cheats in America. (of course he is no longer a tax cheat, as he has fully paid his tax liabilities).

This line of thinking, though, would definitely be picked up by the greenies in governments and in private groups who look to the new US administration's green direction.

On another note, a study conducted in Canada shows a link between efficient lighting (using CFL's) to higher heating bills, thereby negating whatever decrease on greenhouse gas emissions.

CBC News has found that in some cases compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) can have the adverse effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, depending on how consumers heat their homes.

In fact, a recent report by BC Hydro estimates new lighting regulations will increase annual greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia by 45,000 tonnes annually as consumers use more energy to heat their homes after switching to more energy efficient — but cooler — lighting.

Summer's here, PAGASA says. Those of you pining for cooler temperatures, maybe now is the time to invite Al again. He is the cool bearer.

Month of March

March is the US "National Talk to Your Kids About Sex Month". Below are excerpts of the email blast from Elliot Institute. How long until we get going like this in RP? With the RH Bill, impossible is nothing (with apologies to my favorite Adidas).

The Bus, The Mall, The Nurse and The School Counselor

"Every Tuesday a scheduled bus picked up students and took them to the Planned Parenthood clinic. School counselors arranged the visits. It was all so organized. ...

"The nurse said this was not the time to be asking questions."

It could be your daughter, your friend's daughter, your granddaughter, your niece … or some of their classmates. Scheduled for an impromptu "field trip" ... or lured into an abortion clinic during an after-school trip to the mall.

Most parents on all sides of the abortion issue are unaware that their kids and teens in their own circles are at significant risk for coerced abortion and the silent aftershock that even the most well-adjusted youth is ill-equipped to handle alone ...

"Parents are faced with a shell of a person and have no idea where they lost their child." -Terri, who had an abortion as a teen

Every day, a few misguided but influential teachers, counselors, nurses, marketers and even some pastors, are coercing vulnerable young women, who are then typically left alone to grapple with the heartbreaking, sometimes deadly, aftermath.


Even the Shopping Mall Isn't Safe

There is a growing trend among profit-driven abortion providers to open shopping-mall “health centers” designed to reach new and lucrative "markets."

Now, a Friday night trip to the mall may result in more undisclosed medical treatment and do irreparable harm to a young teenager's life.

► Nearly one-third of teen pregnancies end in abortion.1

► The attitude of the teens' parents is a major factor in their decision to abort.2

► Teens associate the abortion procedure with a sense of isolation.3

► Teens are 6 times more likely to attempt suicide if they have had an abortion in the last 6 months than are teens who have not had an abortion.4

Families who have a daughter or sister injured or killed by abortion or lost to suicide in abortion's lonely aftermath, fully understand the heartbreaking urgency of this issue. The need is great for proactive action, compassionate education, outreach and authentic support for those in our own circles.

Good news for stem-cell research

And not embryonic stem-cells.

The National Post reports that a team of Canadian researchers, with help from another team from Scotland, have found a means of growing stem cells from a person's skin. These induced pluripotent stems are believed to be safe against "immune rejection" which are not true for embryonic stem cell use.

Now, will those pushing for the unethical embryonic stem cell procedures stop what they do? Think no? I agree. Why? Stubborness perhaps?

FOCA

The buzz in America: the Freedom of Choice Act. Here are the two bills proposed in 2007 in both the HR and Senate. Practically identical.

The Senate version. The House version.

Excerpts.

Senate's

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.


House's

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.